Presumably, Donnchad mac Cellaig was the son of Cellach mac Cerbaill mac Dungal who is (by tradition) descended back to (possibly legendary) Óengus Osrithe. Where legend ends, and reality starts for the Kings of Osraige, I am not sure.

Post by HWinnSadlerIs anything known about the ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig? He is an ancestor of Aoife of Leinster.

In terms of his ancestry in male, the simplest source to access is Bart Jaski's useful genealogical tables of Irish royal dynasties, which may be accessed at: https://www.academia.edu/4144299/Genealogical_tables_of_medieval_Irish_royal_dynastiesThe two tables covering Osraige kings are found at pp. 126-7.

As to the wives of the kings of Osraige, the earliest source we have (other than individual annal entries) is the "History of Women," found in several manuscripts, including the books of Leinster, Ui Maine, Lecan and Ballymote. These mss. were edited by Margaret C. Dobbs, and can be found (with part translated, and an index) in volumes 47-49. These are available at www.archive.org, and highly recommended.

I looked into "Genealogical Tables of Medieval Irish Royal Dynasties", which confirms the ancestry of the Kings of Osraige. The Book of Lecan, at first glance, would appear to confirm that Echrad, daughter of Matudán mac Áeda, was the mother of Donnchad mac Cerbaill (ancestor of Aoife/Eve of Leinster). This is what David Kelley seems to propose. However, on this board, Stewart Baldwin has brought up some problems with this proposed link.

Post by HWinnSadlerI looked into "Genealogical Tables of Medieval Irish Royal Dynasties", which confirms the ancestry of the Kings of Osraige. The Book of Lecan, at first glance, would appear to confirm that Echrad, daughter of Matudán mac Áeda, was the mother of Donnchad mac Cerbaill (ancestor of Aoife/Eve of Leinster). This is what David Kelley seems to propose. However, on this board, Stewart Baldwin has brought up some problems with this proposed link.

Below is a post from 1998 by Luke Stevens which is a reply to Stephen Baldwin’s skepticism for Echrad of Ulster being the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, King of Osraige. The objection by Baldwin seems to hinge on several tampering acts done by mischievous Lecan scribes, which seems to be a stretch to change the original emendation found in The Book of Lecan. The most plausible explanation given in response to Baldwin’s objections is:

“While this series of largely unmotivated little changes may be at leastpossible, it seems to me like grasping at straws. The much simpler andmore plausible explanation, which convincingly addresses all but thelast of these in one fell swoop, is that the Lecan scribe learned thatEchrad was also the mother of Donnchad, and the error arose as thesentence so stating was rearranged and transcribed, as I said before.” END OF QUOTE

The SGM post titled “Echrad mother of Cellach of Ossory?” which is a reply to Stephen Baldwin’s objections to Echrad of Ulster as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, King of Osraige (d. c. 976) is below:

Rather than quoting the now lengthy entire discussion, let me summarize:

I originally said:1. The chronology is possible, though long, and need not be furtherconsidered.2. An error of transposing two adjacent items is intrinsically morelikely than one of transplanting material from farther down.3. The placement of Echrad in BS 188:8 indicates rearrangement, andtogether with the "7 mathair" indicates the original form Isuggested, which provides a likely cause for a transpositional error.4. The following entry provides a reason to mention the mother ofDonnchad mac Cellaig in such a way and place.5. The title of Cellach is different in 188:9.6. The spelling of "Cellaig" as "Ceallaig" is also different.7. Therefore the "Cellaig rig Osraidi" did not come from there.

To which your reply was that:1. You no longer consider Echrad as the mother of Donnchad mac Aeda,but rather propose that an entire line was wrongly inserted:"m. Cellaig rig Osraidi, mathair Dondchada", which you bracketed.(or was this your original idea and I misunderstood?)2. The title of Cellach was altered after the error, we suppose.3. The minor idiosyncracies in spelling are irrelevant.4. The parallel entries give only one child to Echrad.

I must say, this is certainly an improvement, and a clever one at that!

Post by HWinnSadlerHowever, attempting to correct an error in a text by emendation isserious business, and needs to be supported by good evidence if it isto be accepted. Just showing that the emendation is consistent withother known information is not enough.

Agreed. The idea here is to show firstly that the emendation I supportis consistent with the evidence, and then that any other emendation isuntenable, or at least far less likely, using the only relevant evidenceavailable, the internal evidence of the Ban-Shenchus. Together theseconstitute a sufficient reason to accept the link. Since the latter partinvolves my shooting down any alternative emendation, you can guesswhat's coming below.

Post by HWinnSadlerI think it is more likely that the changes occurred in the otherorder, in which case your objection would not be valid.

You are right, of course, that the title of Cellach may have beenchanged last. An explanation of why this might have occurred stilleludes me, unless perhaps the entry was originally drawn from anindependent source (which would be bad news for your emendation).But all my other points points still stand.

Post by HWinnSadlerThis is a simple scribal slip in which the copyist's eye slips down afew lines, probably caused by the name "Dondchad" on both lines.

To my way of seeing, this is not one scribal error you propose, but two:firstly, the eye must slip down a few lines and begin copying, and thenthe eye must slip back up to the beginning of the same line the scribethinks he has just copied; and then, a moment later when he copies theinterpolated line yet again, he fails to notice that they are the same.Certainly this makes better sense than the error you previouslyproposed, but still it seems much less likely than what I claim.

Considering the lengths of the words and such, for your emendation to becorrect, the earlier text for Lecan must have run something like:

I do not see what you mean about the "Dondchada". In fact there isnothing here to confuse a copyist's eyes at the point in question, muchless to interpolate the fourth line between the first two. So the erroryou propose is not only intrinsically unlikely, IMHO, but also lacks anyapparent cause.

Now what is the "7" (i.e. "and") doing there? We still have Echrad beingmoved to the beginning of the entry, and the original clearly did nothave the "7", nor would there be any compelling reason to insert it.

Post by HWinnSadlerbut the fact that other versions of BS give only one child to Echradgives further confirmation.

My whole point is that the Lecan scribe learned of another child ofEchrad by a different husband and included this information. There areplenty of other cases of this happening in both prose versions, and theLecan entry is not even worded in the same way.

Post by HWinnSadler(The minor idiosyncracies in spelling from one version to another arenot really relevant here.)

After reading hundreds of pages of Irish documents from all times andplaces I have almost forgotten how to spell. But there are certaindiscrete changes in orthography that occur, and one of them is thechange from "e" to "ea" in the applicable places, with the advent of thenew orthography. You will, for example, find the latter almost nowherein the genealogies of Rawlinson B 502 nor in the poetic version of BS.An analysis of these kinds of details would throw an interesting lighton the compilation of the Ban Shenchus.

This is why I bring up the issue of spelling, since "Cellaig" (OldIrish) indicates a source that, in comparison with one containing"Ceallaig" (early Modern Irish, later "Ceallaigh"), is older, or atleast has not been transmitted through a scribe who went aboutconverting names to the new orthography. The differences in spellingbetween BS 188:8 and 188:9 are explained quite nicely if the compilerdrew from another source, which he left intact, for the additionalinformation in 188:8. But if this is just a duplicate of a line fartherdown, then it ought to be spelt the same way, and if a scribe ever cameby and started adding the a's as he copied, he would have no reason todo it to one Cellaig and not the other. This may seem like making amountain out of a molehill, but such details are what we have to go on.

So, your emendation would seem to require several mischievous littlescribes, who in turn tampered with the text as follows:1. correctly rearranged the entry putting Echrad at the beginning2. skipped down a few lines, copied, and then skipped back up to thepoint of departure (rather than the next line) without noticing3. saw the two "mathair" phrases next to each other and inserted an "7"without even bothering to remove the second "mathair"4. converted the "e" in one "Cellaig" to "ea" (or vice versa?) butinconsistently neglected to do the same to the identical word inthe adjacent entry5. changed the title of Cellach in the second entry for no good reason

While this series of largely unmotivated little changes may be at leastpossible, it seems to me like grasping at straws. The much simpler andmore plausible explanation, which convincingly addresses all but thelast of these in one fell swoop, is that the Lecan scribe learned thatEchrad was also the mother of Donnchad, and the error arose as thesentence so stating was rearranged and transcribed, as I said before.

Short of a much more thorough analysis of the Ban Shenchus as a whole(which may appear in the upcoming new edition you mentioned and aboutwhich I am still curious), I doubt there is much more of any import tosay on the issue. Whether I have soundly established the emendation Isupport as sufficiently more likely than the alternative is a judgementcall. You always take such a staunchly skeptical view of things (anadmirable quality) that I wonder whether I have convinced anyone.

Post by HWinnSadlerUnfortunately, I think we are going to have to try and scrounge a UiNeill descent for Eve of Leinster in some other way.

Never fear; I am about to dredge up another weak link and strengthen itconsiderably (IMHO) in the following message.

Post by HWinnSadlerI looked into "Genealogical Tables of Medieval Irish Royal Dynasties", which confirms the ancestry of the Kings of Osraige. The Book of Lecan, at first glance, would appear to confirm that Echrad, daughter of Matudán mac Áeda, was the mother of Donnchad mac Cerbaill (ancestor of Aoife/Eve of Leinster). This is what David Kelley seems to propose. However, on this board, Stewart Baldwin has brought up some problems with this proposed link.

Dr. David H. Kelley surely believed in The Book of Lecan's confirmation that Echrad, daughter of Matudán mac Áeda, was the mother of Donnchad mac Cerbaill. Despite the different objections and complicated analyses to Dr. Kelley's emendation found throughout the SGM archives, it should be pointed out that Dr. Kelley was not only a superb genealogist but also a gifted epigrapher. He worked extensively on scripts and linguistics in his archaeological career. If any genealogist would have discovered scribal errors in a text, it would have been Dr. Kelley.

Post by HWinnSadlerIs anything known about the ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig? He is an ancestor of Aoife of Leinster.

In this whole discussion, I have not seen (but certainly may have missed) any reference to the other mention of Echrad in Dobbs' Revue Celtique article. Following her transcription of the Book of Lecan version, she gives the version in The Book of Ua Maine (from the Royal Irish Academy, available in digital form [as is the Book of Lecan] at https://www.isos.dias.ie/english/index.html.

The metrical version in the Book of Leinster, written from a prose source by Gilla Mo Dutu Ua Casaide in 1147, also has no reference to Ossory.

One the surface, I do not think we do not need complicated explanations. The Lecan scribe inserted "m. Cellaig rig Osraidi, mathair Dondchada" and the symbol for "and." I am not sure we have to question how this happened, as I believe Leinster and Ua Maine provide us with a glimpse of the original form.

Post by HWinnSadlerIs anything known about the ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig? He is an ancestor of Aoife of Leinster.

All this talk of scribal errors leaves me confused. Should Echrad ingen Matudan be accepted as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig? If so, one can connect Aoife/Eve of Leinster to the semi-legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages.

Post by HWinnSadlerIs anything known about the ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig? He is an ancestor of Aoife of Leinster.

All this talk of scribal errors leaves me confused. Should Echrad ingen Matudan be accepted as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig? If so, one can connect Aoife/Eve of Leinster to the semi-legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages.

This alleged link is no more than wishful thinking, and should be completely rejected. In outline, the reasons are as follows:

1. Even in the absence of other evidence, the chronology is problematic.

2. The passage appearing in the Book of Lecan is clearly corrupt, and requires significant changes in order to turn it into the statement which supposedly supports the claim.

3. The claim that some scribe with additional information entered that information, which was then later corrupted in a rather unusual way, but can now be "uncorrupted" by a later argument, which just happens to give a "desirable" result, is an extreme version of wishful thinking, and should be regarded as a "red flag" of major proportions.

4. The version in the Book of Ballymote, which was not published in Dobbs's edition, and to which David Kelley did not have access, gives a clear indication of how the corruption in the Book of Lecan occurred, showing that the additional words in the Book of Lecan entry are an erroneous intrusion, and have no authority whatsoever.

The full details appeared in my article "On a Supposed Descent from the High Kings of Ireland," The American Genealogist 76 (2001): 282–87.

Post by s***@mindspring.comThe full details appeared in my article "On a Supposed Descent from the High Kings of Ireland," The American Genealogist 76 (2001): 282–87.Stewart Baldwin

The 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in has been out of print for a while. It might help to share an excerpt from your article that discusses the new proposed wife (Sabh?) of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who was the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976).

Post by HWinnSadlerIs anything known about the ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig? He is an ancestor of Aoife of Leinster.

All this talk of scribal errors leaves me confused. Should Echrad ingen Matudan be accepted as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig? If so, one can connect Aoife/Eve of Leinster to the semi-legendary Niall of the Nine Hostages.

In a much earlier thread, Stewart Baldwin stated: “In my opinion. this weak link is just too weak to consider this as a valid descent from Niall.”

Just as there can be claims made suggesting that Professor Kelley’s emendation of the text should not be accepted, there are other respected historical/genealogical professionals who suggest that it should be accepted.

In the outlined points below, many of these objections have already been addressed by others in the past on this newsgroup. I have no stake in the matter and felt those new to the newsgroup would benefit from this information. In the following, I am simply restating a lot of the previous responses to these points.

As to the chronology, though we do not have dates for Aed, father of Donnchad Finn, we do have dates for five of his brothers, which suggest that Aed probably died about 920. With Donnchad Finn dying 974, the only improvement in the chronology is a decade or so, with a lot more play.

Though this is less than ideal, it is certainly not implausible. There is a good decade or so of play with most of the dates, which are consistent with everything else we know, such as regnal years, and does not require bizarre marriage patterns or extraordinary longevity (greater than the ripe old age of 90). In fact, the obits themselves require something that looks like this.

But the more important issue is the textual emendation. If I understand what you are getting at, it is an alternative emendation replacing "Cellaig rig Osraidi" with "Aeda" and leaving the other "Aeda" intact.”

Post by s***@mindspring.com2. The passage appearing in the Book of Lecan is clearly corrupt, and requires significant changes in order to turn it into the statement which supposedly supports the claim.

“First of all, as scribal errors go, a transpositional error involving two adjacent items, in this case the patronymics of two adjacent names, is very common, so that this can hardly be considered *radical*. But a substitutional error not resulting from misidentification, as you propose here, is especially rare. If a scribe loses his place and starts copying from a few lines down, which happens often enough, he will not then recover his original place, much less after the extent of one short name, unless he notices the error and is returning to correct it.

A transpositional error is especially common when a text is being reorganized as it is copied, e.g. when inverting a pedigree. I think there is some internal evidence in BS that this was the case for theentry in question. BS 313 & 227 both essentially go: "Ingen Matudain m.Aeda, .i. Echrad, mathair Muircertaig..." whereas 188 reads "Echrad ingen Madadain...." 188 also uses the word "mother" twice, in contrast to all the surrounding entries, where children are given in a list, even BS 189:12, where such a format causes ambiguity. I think the original must have read something like: "The mother of Donnchad m. Cellaig, K. Ossory, was the daughter of Matudan m. Aeda, Echrad, the mother of Muirchertach Ua Neill." The compiler wants to say that Echrad, who was better known as the mother of Muirchertach, was also the mother of Donnchad, perhaps in preparation for the following entry, where his daughter Cacht is in turn said to be the mother of another Donnchad. But to fit the entry in the same format as the others, with the name of the mother first, the compiler had to rework the sentence, and in the process forgot to switch the patronymics.

It is all the more unlikely that the "m. Cellaig rig Osraidi" came from the following entry, in light of that it actually reads "Ceallaig ri Laigin (no leithrig Osraidi)." Note the different title (is it correct?). Both here and in 227 Ceallaig is spelt with an "ea". The spelling "Cellaig" must come from somewhere else, and probably an older original source at that.

IMHO, therefore, Kelley's emendation is sound and ought to be accepted.”

Post by s***@mindspring.com3. The claim that some scribe with additional information entered that information, which was then later corrupted in a rather unusual way, but can now be "uncorrupted" by a later argument, which just happens to give a "desirable" result, is an extreme version of wishful thinking, and should be regarded as a "red flag" of major proportions.

The emendation that Stewart Baldwin proposes in the simplest terms requires several mischievous and unmotivated little scribes, who in turn tampered with the text as follows (which also seems to be a version of wishful thinking):

“1. Correctly rearranged the entry putting Echrad at the beginning.2. Skipped down a few lines, copied, and then skipped back up to the point of departure (rather than the next line) without noticing.3. Saw the two "mathair" phrases next to each other and inserted a "7" without even bothering to remove the second "mathair".4. Converted the "e" in one "Cellaig" to "ea" (or vice versa?) but inconsistently neglected to do the same to the identical word in the adjacent entry.5. Changed the title of Cellach in the second entry for no good reason.

While this series of largely unmotivated little changes may be at least possible, it seems to me like grasping at straws. The much simpler and more plausible explanation, which convincingly addresses all but the last of these in one fell swoop, is that the Lecan scribe learned that Echrad was also the mother of Donnchad, and the error arose as the sentence so stating was rearranged and transcribed, as I said before.”

Post by s***@mindspring.com4. The version in the Book of Ballymote, which was not published in Dobbs's edition, and to which David Kelley did not have access, gives a clear indication of how the corruption in the Book of Lecan occurred, showing that the additional words in the Book of Lecan entry are an erroneous intrusion, and have no authority whatsoever.

It’s very hard to believe in the assumption that Professor David Kelley did not know about the Book of Ballymote. Furthermore, using his alleged lack of knowledge of this book as the reason to diminish Professor Kelley’s emendation of the Book of Lecan’s text clearly appears to be an attempt to strengthen one's objection to Professor Kelley. The Book of Ballymote was compiled towards the end of the 14th century at the castle of Ballymote for Tonnaltagh McDonagh, who was then in occupation of the castle. In 1785, it was returned to the Royal Irish Academy where it remained as one of the Academy's most treasured possessions. The work was photographed by the Academy in 1887 and two hundred copies of it were made. One copy is in the diocesan archives and others in libraries. The edition being referred to is, ‘The Book of Ballymote: Photographic facsimile with introduction by R. Atkinson, (Dublin 1887),’ which was published in 1887. Only personal correspondence from Professor Kelley himself, where he stated as such, would prove such a claim.

Post by s***@mindspring.comThe full details appeared in my article "On a Supposed Descent from the High Kings of Ireland," The American Genealogist 76 (2001): 282–87.

The 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in is not readily available. Perhaps it would help if you shared the new proposed candidate for the wife of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who would have also been the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976)?!

Post by d***@aol.comThe 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in is not readily available. Perhaps it would help if you shared the new proposed candidate for the wife of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who would have also been the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976)?!

It's not clear what you mean by this, as several comments above have told you exactly how to receive a copy.

With the author's permission, and proof that you are a current or new subscriber to TAG, I'll send you a digital copy.--Joe Cook

Post by d***@aol.comThe 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in is not readily available. Perhaps it would help if you shared the new proposed candidate for the wife of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who would have also been the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976)?!

It's not clear what you mean by this, as several comments above have told you exactly how to receive a copy.With the author's permission, and proof that you are a current or new subscriber to TAG, I'll send you a digital copy.--Joe Cook

Post by d***@aol.comThe 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in is not readily available. Perhaps it would help if you shared the new proposed candidate for the wife of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who would have also been the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976)?!

It's not clear what you mean by this, as several comments above have told you exactly how to receive a copy.With the author's permission, and proof that you are a current or new subscriber to TAG, I'll send you a digital copy.--Joe Cook

TAG 76.4/Oct 2001/241-360/OUT OF PRINT

Yes, but copies already available are still obtainable. Also, americanancestors.org has all issues digitized on their website. Even this one (just pulled it up)--Joe Cook

Post by d***@aol.comThe 2001 TAG publication that this particular article appears in is not readily available. Perhaps it would help if you shared the new proposed candidate for the wife of Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908), who would have also been the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig (d. 976)?!

My TAG article was concerned only with showing that the theory making Echrad the mother of Donnchad is not credible. To my knowledge, no candidate has been proposed in her place. Donnchad's mother is simply unknown (as is also the case for the vast majority of other early Irish kings). An outline of the case for rejecting Echrad's maternity of Donnchad is as follows.

Comparison with the closely related Book of Ballymote version clearly indicates where the additional words in the Book of Lecan version came from. The entry immediately following the entry on Echrad is also relevant. I have added asterisks to emphasize certain features.

[".H." is the standard abbreviation for "Ua" and its various declensions.]

The important observations are the following:

1. With the exception of an additional ampersand and minor differences in spelling, the Book of Lecan entry for Echrad consists of the Book of Ballymote entry with the words between *...* from Cacht's entry in the Book of Ballymote accidently inserted into Echrad's entry (marked with an "*").

2. The Book of Lecan's entry on Cacht, which contains slightly different words between the two asterisks, is also corrupt, for the Donnchad mac Cellaig who was also king of Laigin (Leinster) was not the same man as Cacht's father, but a later descendant. Thus, the Book of Ballymote preserves the earlier version of the text more closely.

These two observations alone are sufficient to show us that the Book of Lecan has no authority on this matter, but there is an additional observation that allows us to deduce how the corruption occurred with a high degree of probability.

3. The last two words of the intruding passage ("Dondchada mic") are the same as the two words immediately preceding the intruding passage in Cacht's entry in the Book of Ballymote.

Thus, it is highly probable that the corruption (occurring in one or more manuscripts ancestral to the Book of Lecan version) occurred in the following way.

Step 1: In an ancestral manuscript, one copyists eye skipped from one occurrence of "Dondchada mic" to the next, causing him to accidently omit the words *Cellaig righ Osraidhe mathair Dondchada mic* from Cacht's entry. This type of error, where the scribe's eye skips from a word or phrase to the same word or phrase a bit further down, causing words to be omitted, is one of the most common copying errors in medieval manuscripts. Upon discovering the error, the usual procedure would have been to put the omitted words in the margin, with an indication of where they belonged.

Step 2. A later copyist, upon encountering the marginal words, accidently inserts them in the wrong place.

Step 3 (perhaps soon after step 2, perhaps in a later copy). The grammar problems in the entries for Echrad and Cacht (as they existed after step 2) are noticed. An inserted ampersand makes the grammar of Echrad's entry correct, but Cacht's entry is obviously incomplete at this stage. An apparently corrupt source is used to fill in the entry.

This scenario was criticized by those supporting Kelley's theory as being too "complicated" but this was in fact a common type of error in textual transmission. On the other hand, Kelley's theory requires a series of events similar to the following:

Step 2: The entry then got scrambled in such a way that the word "Aeda" and the three words "Cellaig rig Osraidi" switched places to give the version appearing in the Book of Lecan, an extremely uncommon type of transmission error.

If we accept this version of events, we are then required to believe that it is a complete coincidence that the additional words appearing in the Book of Lecan version as it is today (i.e., the words between asterisks) are the same as a phrase appearing in the Book of Ballymote version, and that the corruption of the entry on Cacht in the Book of Lecan version is an unrelated coincidence.

It is too bad that the theory doesn't hold water, as it would be nice to have a descent of Aife ingen Diarmata ("Eve of Leinster)" from the Ui Neill kings. If one is willing to accept a "discontinuous" descent (i.e., a descent missing one or more generations), then the following line is available.

Carrach Calma was a nickname of Donnchad (d. 969), a great-grandson of the Ui Neill king Flann Sinna. Gormlaith is called a daughter of Carrach Calma in the Book of Ui Maine version (obviously chronologically impossible) and a daughter of Mac Carraig Calma in the Book of Lecan version. Since surnames were already developing at that time, it is not clear whether "ingen Mac Carraig Calma" means "daughter of a son of Carrach Calma" (chronologically possible, but only if extreme circumstance are assumed) or daughter of a later descendant of Carrach Calma who was using "Mac Carraig Calma" as a surname (much more likely). The only son of Carrach Calma of whom I am aware was Oengus mac Carraig Calma, who died in 1017. There appears to be too little information about the descendants of Carrach Calma to determine the exact line of descent. While not impossible, it would be a stretch to assume that Oengus was the maternal grandfather of a man who died 132 years later after he did.

Post by s***@mindspring.comIt is too bad that the theory doesn't hold water, as it would be nice to have a descent of Aife ingen Diarmata ("Eve of Leinster)" from the Ui Neill kings. If one is willing to accept a "discontinuous" descent (i.e., a descent missing one or more generations), then the following line is available.Amargen Ua Morda (d. 1097), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Mac Carraig Calma.Loigsech Ua Morda (d. 1149), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Finn Ua Caellaide.Cacht ingen Loigsig Ua Morda, m. Muirchertach Ua Tuathail (d. 1146), king of Ui Muiredaig.Mor ingen Muirchertaig Ua Tuathail, m. Diarmait Mac Murchada (d. 1171), king of Laigin (Leinster).Aife ingen Diarmata, m. Richard Strongbow.Carrach Calma was a nickname of Donnchad (d. 969), a great-grandson of the Ui Neill king Flann Sinna. Gormlaith is called a daughter of Carrach Calma in the Book of Ui Maine version (obviously chronologically impossible) and a daughter of Mac Carraig Calma in the Book of Lecan version. Since surnames were already developing at that time, it is not clear whether "ingen Mac Carraig Calma" means "daughter of a son of Carrach Calma" (chronologically possible, but only if extreme circumstance are assumed) or daughter of a later descendant of Carrach Calma who was using "Mac Carraig Calma" as a surname (much more likely). The only son of Carrach Calma of whom I am aware was Oengus mac Carraig Calma, who died in 1017. There appears to be too little information about the descendants of Carrach Calma to determine the exact line of descent. While not impossible, it would be a stretch to assume that Oengus was the maternal grandfather of a man who died 132 years later after he did.Stewart Baldwin

So this could be a hypothetical (even possible) line for those seeking a descent for Aoife of Leinster from Ui Neill kings:

Post by s***@mindspring.comIt is too bad that the theory doesn't hold water, as it would be nice to have a descent of Aife ingen Diarmata ("Eve of Leinster)" from the Ui Neill kings. If one is willing to accept a "discontinuous" descent (i.e., a descent missing one or more generations), then the following line is available.Amargen Ua Morda (d. 1097), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Mac Carraig Calma.Loigsech Ua Morda (d. 1149), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Finn Ua Caellaide.Cacht ingen Loigsig Ua Morda, m. Muirchertach Ua Tuathail (d. 1146), king of Ui Muiredaig.Mor ingen Muirchertaig Ua Tuathail, m. Diarmait Mac Murchada (d. 1171), king of Laigin (Leinster).Aife ingen Diarmata, m. Richard Strongbow.Carrach Calma was a nickname of Donnchad (d. 969), a great-grandson of the Ui Neill king Flann Sinna. Gormlaith is called a daughter of Carrach Calma in the Book of Ui Maine version (obviously chronologically impossible) and a daughter of Mac Carraig Calma in the Book of Lecan version. Since surnames were already developing at that time, it is not clear whether "ingen Mac Carraig Calma" means "daughter of a son of Carrach Calma" (chronologically possible, but only if extreme circumstance are assumed) or daughter of a later descendant of Carrach Calma who was using "Mac Carraig Calma" as a surname (much more likely). The only son of Carrach Calma of whom I am aware was Oengus mac Carraig Calma, who died in 1017. There appears to be too little information about the descendants of Carrach Calma to determine the exact line of descent. While not impossible, it would be a stretch to assume that Oengus was the maternal grandfather of a man who died 132 years later after he did.Stewart Baldwin

Professor Baldwin, what exactly are you saying is available with the alternative line you mentioned from Ui Neill kings? You don't have to answer the following, but out of pure interest, do you have a descent from Eve of Leinster?

The passages in the Book of Ui Maine and the Book of Lecan that state Gormlaith 'ingen Carraig Calma' and Gormlaith 'ingen mac Carraig Calma' could both be inventions or corruptions of the original text. This is possible given that there is no exact or clearly defined line of descent from Donnchad 'Carrach Calma' (d. 969) to Gormlaith. You did follow up this post clarifying that there were three grandsons of Donnchad, namely Muirchertach ua Carraig (d. 1022), rigdamna of Tara, Conchobar ua Carraig (d. 1023), and Máel Ruanaid ua Carraig Calma (d. 1033). However, would nothing else be available in the event that the passages in the Book of Ui Maine and the Book of Lecan are corrupt concerning Gormlaith's patronymic?

Post by d***@aol.comThe passages in the Book of Ui Maine and the Book of Lecan that state Gormlaith 'ingen Carraig Calma' and Gormlaith 'ingen mac Carraig Calma' could both be inventions or corruptions of the original text. This is possible given that there is no exact or clearly defined line of descent from Donnchad 'Carrach Calma' (d. 969) to Gormlaith. You did follow up this post clarifying that there were three grandsons of Donnchad, namely Muirchertach ua Carraig (d. 1022), rigdamna of Tara, Conchobar ua Carraig (d. 1023), and Máel Ruanaid ua Carraig Calma (d. 1033). However, would nothing else be available in the event that the passages in the Book of Ui Maine and the Book of Lecan are corrupt concerning Gormlaith's patronymic?

While the reading from the Book of Ui Maine is clearly corrupt (since Gormlaith could not have been a daughter of Carrach Calma, I see no good reason to say the same for the Book of Lecan version. Such vague entries are not that uncommon for the Ban Shenchas, especially in cases where the woman was a member of a more obscure family (which was apparently the case for Carrach Calma's descendants by the time this was written). It is quite possible that the original scribe(s) knew that Gormlaith was a descendant of Carrach Calma, but did not know (or remember) her father's first name. Unfortunately, the Book of Ballymote version breaks off before reaching her entry (in fact, it stops a few entries after the entry for Echrad, frequently mentioned in this thread). The introduction to the edition by Dobbs mentions a couple of other manuscripts containing part of the Ban Shenchas, but the versions in the Books of Ui Maine and Lecan are the longest representatives of the prose version, and the metrical version ends at an earlier period. I have photocopies from the original manuscript of the Book of Ballymote version and from the published facsimiles of the Book of Ui Maine and Book of Lecan version, but I have never seen the other versions. A more modern edition of both the metrical and prose versions appeared in the Masters and Doctoral theses of the late Muireann Ní Bhrolchain, but to my knowledge, the planned published version from Four Courts Press never appeared. It was on the list of books from Four Courts Press in the late 1990's, but when I ordered a copy around 2000, I received a response that the author had not yet delivered the manuscript, and it disappeared from their list soon afterward. Some booksellers (such as Amazon) list the book as out of print (even with an ISBN number!), but I have never heard from anybody who claims to have seen a copy.

The bottom line is that when you are doing genealogy, things are sometimes going to be more complicated than the naive fill-in-the-blanks approach encouraged by the usual genealogy database programs, especially in settings where the evidence is slim. There is always a (perhaps slim) possibility that one of the inadequately explored Irish genealogical manuscripts will produce a nice surprise for us. Meanwhile, however, a "discontuous" line from "Eve" of Leinster to the Uí Néill kings is the best we can do.

Post by s***@mindspring.comIt is too bad that the theory doesn't hold water, as it would be nice to have a descent of Aife ingen Diarmata ("Eve of Leinster)" from the Ui Neill kings. If one is willing to accept a "discontinuous" descent (i.e., a descent missing one or more generations), then the following line is available.Amargen Ua Morda (d. 1097), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Mac Carraig Calma.Loigsech Ua Morda (d. 1149), king of Loigsi, m. Gormlaith ingen Finn Ua Caellaide.Cacht ingen Loigsig Ua Morda, m. Muirchertach Ua Tuathail (d. 1146), king of Ui Muiredaig.Mor ingen Muirchertaig Ua Tuathail, m. Diarmait Mac Murchada (d. 1171), king of Laigin (Leinster).Aife ingen Diarmata, m. Richard Strongbow.Carrach Calma was a nickname of Donnchad (d. 969), a great-grandson of the Ui Neill king Flann Sinna. Gormlaith is called a daughter of Carrach Calma in the Book of Ui Maine version (obviously chronologically impossible) and a daughter of Mac Carraig Calma in the Book of Lecan version. Since surnames were already developing at that time, it is not clear whether "ingen Mac Carraig Calma" means "daughter of a son of Carrach Calma" (chronologically possible, but only if extreme circumstance are assumed) or daughter of a later descendant of Carrach Calma who was using "Mac Carraig Calma" as a surname (much more likely). The only son of Carrach Calma of whom I am aware was Oengus mac Carraig Calma, who died in 1017. There appears to be too little information about the descendants of Carrach Calma to determine the exact line of descent. While not impossible, it would be a stretch to assume that Oengus was the maternal grandfather of a man who died 132 years later after he did.Stewart Baldwin

To conclude with what this thread ultimately turned out being, a quest to find a descent for Eve of Leinster from Uí Néill kings, the following is presented. While the following line of descent has yet to be completely proven, it is one of the most probable given the prevailing evidence to date for a descent from Uí Néill kings to Eve of Leinster. Some of the generations have already been commented on previously, so we don’t need to rehash over that again. Therefore, before picking apart every single generation, take heed of the where it says “one of the most probable” lines of descent. The spelling of given names and placement of titles have been corrected where needed.

What is the usefulness to know what line is the most probable to be correct when it is almost certain to be incorrect?

The most probable method ever presented on this list for converting silver to gold is by pouring vinegar on it. Please don't quibble about the details of that statement because no one here has presented a better way and so this Remains the most probable one.

Post by j***@gmail.comWhat is the usefulness to know what line is the most probable to be correct when it is almost certain to be incorrect?The most probable method ever presented on this list for converting silver to gold is by pouring vinegar on it. Please don't quibble about the details of that statement because no one here has presented a better way and so this Remains the most probable one.

The certainty of it being incorrect is merely an opinion. The utility of the most probable line can be ascertained by the originator of this thread. Many, many, many other theoretical lines of descents have been posted scores of times in this newsgroup. Which, sorry to say, are far from being close to reality, and obviously became topics for discussion and debate.

Post by Peter StewartCan someone explain why so many messages are getting deleted inthis thread (seven so far), and in a few others recently?I presume these posts will still be in the sgm archive, butit's disconcerting that somebody feels the need to be a kindof flash-presence in the newsgroup.

No. With the gateway to GEN-MEDIEVAL down, Google Groups _is_ the archive to s.g.m, and what Google allows to be deleted will not appear. There are some other partial archives around the net (links below) but they appear no longer to be active. For the time since we lost the gateway, gone from Google Groups is GONE.

Post by Peter StewartCan someone explain why so many messages are getting deleted inthis thread (seven so far), and in a few others recently?I presume these posts will still be in the sgm archive, butit's disconcerting that somebody feels the need to be a kindof flash-presence in the newsgroup.

No. With the gateway to GEN-MEDIEVAL down, Google Groups _is_ the archive to s.g.m, and what Google allows to be deleted will not appear. There are some other partial archives around the net (links below) but they appear no longer to be active. For the time since we lost the gateway, gone from Google Groups is GONE.

I don't suppose we can be losing much, provided that the only person who can delete posts via Google is the one who made them in the first place - anyone frivolous enough to do this (or silly enough to need to do it) is unlikely to contribute substantially.

Post by d***@aol.comTo conclude with what this thread ultimately turned out being, a quest to find a descent for Eve of Leinster from Uí Néill kings, the following is presented. While the following line of descent has yet to be completely proven, it is one of the most probable given the prevailing evidence to date for a descent from Uí Néill kings to Eve of Leinster. Some of the generations have already been commented on previously, so we don’t need to rehash over that again. Therefore, before picking apart every single generation, take heed of the where it says “one of the most probable” lines of descent. The spelling of given names and placement of titles have been corrected where needed.

"Rehashing" is sometimes needed when inaccurate statements are made. The old ("That's the way it is. No need to discuss further.") approach may work against the very timid, but that approach is much more likely to annoy someone than to convince them.

All that is known is that Gormlaith was likely to have been a descendant of Carrach Calma through UNKNOWN intermediate generations (two or three intermediate generations seems about right, but there is no certainty here). Our knowledge of the obscure branches of the Uí Néill is far from complete. Gormlaith could very well descend from intermediate generations who never got mentioned in the annals or other sources.

A lot of bad genealogy results from the use of false precision. If you want to give a line of descent that is acceptable at a reasonable level of scholarship, then the "fuzziness" between your generations 18 and 21 needs to be CLEARLY noted, and not concealed.

Post by s***@mindspring.com"Rehashing" is sometimes needed when inaccurate statements are made. The old ("That's the way it is. No need to discuss further.") approach may work against the very timid, but that approach is much more likely to annoy someone than to convince them.

As noted before, these three generations are not only undocumented, depending on late sources, but have suspicious elements.

Professor Baldwin, my deepest apologies for annoying you on an unmonitored newsgroup. I'm not a member of F.A.S.G. or professing to be an expert in Irish medieval genealogy. Numerous lines of descent were given in the first several posts of this thread which where ALL hypothetical. I clearly noted in the intro of the post you replied to, that the line of descent was only "probable", not 100% historically accurate with intricate precision.

With regard to the first three generations, the Irish medieval historian, Bart Jaski, includes these three generations in his genealogical tables. You have cited Jaski's genealogical tables several times on this newsgroup.

"Bart Jaski's genealogical tables are an excellent source for the main lines of most of the genealogies."

Are his genealogical tables pertaining to the above three generations an error and should be considered unreliable now?

All that is known is that Gormlaith was likely to have been a descendant of Carrach Calma through UNKNOWN intermediate generations (two or three intermediate generations seems about right, but there is no certainty here). Our knowledge of the obscure branches of the Uí Néill is far from complete. Gormlaith could very well descend from intermediate generations who never got mentioned in the annals or other sources.

The statements probably, most likely, and possibly doesn't mean that Gormlaith was descended from Carrach Calma. There very well could have been an error with the entry about Gormlaith in the Book of Lecan where it states, "Gormlaid ingen mic (ob. 1017) Carraich Calma".

A lot of bad genealogy results from the use of false precision. If you want to give a line of descent that is acceptable at a reasonable level of scholarship, then the "fuzziness" between your generations 18 and 21 needs to be CLEARLY noted, and not concealed.Stewart Baldwin

Professor Baldwin, you presented the following lineage earlier in the thread:

"If one is willing to accept a "discontinuous" descent (i.e., a descent missing one or more generations), then the following line is available.

I was merely presenting a discontinuous line of descent, adding in possible candidates for those discontinuous generations, and stating that it was probable. However, I see no reason to accept it now based on the grounds of discontinuity. Perhaps it should be abandoned.

Additionally, there was no attempt to conceal anything. Proposing a "possible" or "probable" line of descent, which was stated in the intro of the post you replied to was hardly any intention to spread malice, discontent, or bad genealogy on this newsgroup. With regard to the "fuzziness", I stated, "While the following line of descent has yet to be completely proven, it is one of the most probable". It should have been obvious, even to the novice genealogist reading the thread, that "has yet to be completely proven" means undocumented. Would a note for generations 18 to 21 been useful? Sure! Thank you for pointing that out.

You are looking at main lines of the Tir Conaill and Tir Eoghain kings. Again, Bart Jaski's paper gives an outline. F.J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High-Kings" will provide more details.

But I still do not believe that the garbled entry in Lecan conclusively supports the view that Echrad was the mother of Donnchad of Osraige. Parallel texts in Leinster and Ui Maine do not support this view, and suggest an accidental interpolation. I will, however, as time permits see what may be found in MacFirbjs' massive collection.

1.Fergal2.Maelduin3.Maelfithrich4.Aed "Uaridnach"5.Domnall "Ilchelgach"6.Muirchertach7.Muiredach8.Eogan9.Niall "of the Nine Hostages"You are looking at main lines of the Tir Conaill and Tir Eoghain kings. Again, Bart Jaski's paper gives an outline. F.J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High-Kings" will provide more details.But I still do not believe that the garbled entry in Lecan conclusively supports the view that Echrad was the mother of Donnchad of Osraige. Parallel texts in Leinster and Ui Maine do not support this view, and suggest an accidental interpolation. I will, however, as time permits see what may be found in MacFirbjs' massive collection.

Alas, MacFirbis, who only gives the barebones pedigree of the Osraige kings, has nothing on Donnchadh's mother.

1.Fergal2.Maelduin3.Maelfithrich4.Aed "Uaridnach"5.Domnall "Ilchelgach"6.Muirchertach7.Muiredach8.Eogan9.Niall "of the Nine Hostages"You are looking at main lines of the Tir Conaill and Tir Eoghain kings. Again, Bart Jaski's paper gives an outline. F.J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High-Kings" will provide more details.But I still do not believe that the garbled entry in Lecan conclusively supports the view that Echrad was the mother of Donnchad of Osraige. Parallel texts in Leinster and Ui Maine do not support this view, and suggest an accidental interpolation. I will, however, as time permits see what may be found in MacFirbjs' massive collection.

Alas, MacFirbis, who only gives the barebones pedigree of the Osraige kings, has nothing on Donnchadh's mother.

If the entry in The Book of Lecan which asserts that Echrad was the mother of Donnchad of Osraige is the issue, then the following descent to Gilla Patraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige (d. c. 996) removes that problem all together:

1.Fergal2.Maelduin3.Maelfithrich4.Aed "Uaridnach"5.Domnall "Ilchelgach"6.Muirchertach7.Muiredach8.Eogan9.Niall "of the Nine Hostages"You are looking at main lines of the Tir Conaill and Tir Eoghain kings. Again, Bart Jaski's paper gives an outline. F.J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High-Kings" will provide more details.But I still do not believe that the garbled entry in Lecan conclusively supports the view that Echrad was the mother of Donnchad of Osraige. Parallel texts in Leinster and Ui Maine do not support this view, and suggest an accidental interpolation. I will, however, as time permits see what may be found in MacFirbjs' massive collection.

Alas, MacFirbis, who only gives the barebones pedigree of the Osraige kings, has nothing on Donnchadh's mother.

Margaret Dobbs' edition of the Bhanshenchus, Revue Celtique, XLVIII, 187, show Ailbi (same ancestry as above) as the mother of Diarmait the son of Cerball and of a king of Connachta (Connaught). In this text, when a particular child or children is/are named, we are safe in assuming that other children of a particular father are by one or more different mothers.

Post by r***@gmail.comMargaret Dobbs' edition of the Bhanshenchus, Revue Celtique, XLVIII, 187, show Ailbi (same ancestry as above) as the mother of Diarmait the son of Cerball and of a king of Connachta (Connaught). In this text, when a particular child or children is/are named, we are safe in assuming that other children of a particular father are by one or more different mothers.

While I think that this would usually be the case, I'm not sure that we should go quite so far as stating that we are "safe in assuming" this. It could just mean that the child/children named was/were the only one(s) of interest to the scribe, or that the scribe did not know who the mothers of the other children were, and was exercising due caution. What is really important is that we never safe in assuming the opposite.

Divorce and remarriage (by both men and women) was so common among the early medieval Irish aristocracy that it is likely on statistical grounds alone that a significant majority of Irish kings who left issue did so by more than one mother. So, to me, the main principle ought to be something like the following.

"Even if only one wife of an early medieval Irish king is known, it is never appropriate to conclude that she was the mother of all of his known children, unless the early sources give clear evidence that this was the case."

Of course, similar versions of this warning are valid in other settings, but it is especially important in societies where divorce and remarriage (or unrecorded bigamy or illegitimacy) were common.

1. I am unaware of any evidence that Maelfebail was the mother of Cellach mac Cerbaill. Most Irish Kings had many wives, so it is generally not a good idea to presume one specific wife was the mother of one of the King's sons without explicit evidence. There may be evidence for Cellach's maternity, but I'm unaware of it.

2. While it is the traditional genealogy, it seems Diarmait mac Cerbaill's descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally rejected. From Wikipedia: "As for the reality, Byrne says: Diarmait's immediate origins are obscure and may arouse some suspicion. He notes that Adomnán calls Diarmait filius Cerbulis, son of Cerball, and not son of Fergus as the genealogies would have it. The same applies to other hagiographical materials, which again have Diarmait as the son of an otherwise unknown Cerball. Also likely to raise suspicion that Diarmait's genealogy is a later fiction, is the fact that unlike the majority of the Uí Néill, who traced their descent from, and were named for, sons of Niall, Diarmait's descendants were named for his sons.

While the Book of Lecan seems to be the only source for Donnchad's maternity, that does not automatically mean it is incorrect. Luke Stevens seemed to raise some good arguments in favor of the interpolation's truthfullness.

Post by HWinnSadlerWhile the Book of Lecan seems to be the only source for Donnchad's maternity, that does not automatically mean it is incorrect. Luke Stevens seemed to raise some good arguments in favor of the interpolation's truthfullness.

It also doesn't mean that The Book of Lecan's entry for Donnchad's maternity is correct, either. Although, you could call it the "traditional genealogy!"

I"m curious if you have any evidence for the other wives of Cellach mac Cerbaill, besides the daughter of Máel Sechlainn?

You initiated this thread requesting an ascent for "Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada (d. 996), son of Donnchad mac Cellaig." Please provide the ascent for Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, that you are looking for?! Gens 4 though 18 are generally accepted. Stewart Baldwin even includes a daughter of Máel Sechlainn as the mother of Cellach mac Cerbaill in his genealogical tables. There are other discussions in the SGM archives dating back to 1998 on this topic. I'm sure you can find them.

I am not saying it is a fact that Echrad ingen Matudan was truly the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, only that there are arguments for and against the position.

I know of no other wives of Cellach mac Cerbaill. However, that doesn't automatically mean she is the mother of all of his children.

I started the thread looking for any information on his ancestors. Stewart Baldwin is very respectable, if he accepts the descent, it very likely is true. I will definitely look for those threads. Thank you for mentioning them.

Post by HWinnSadlerI am not saying it is a fact that Echrad ingen Matudan was truly the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, only that there are arguments for and against the position.

As mentioned earlier, the best counter-argument given to the strongest objection of Echrad ingen Matudan being the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig is below:

“My whole point is that the Lecan scribe learned of another child of Echrad by a different husband and included this information. There are plenty of other cases of this happening in both prose versions, and the Lecan entry is not even worded in the same way . . . While this series of largely unmotivated little changes may be at least possible, it seems to me like grasping at straws. The much simpler and more plausible explanation, which convincingly addresses all but the last of these in one fell swoop, is that the Lecan scribe learned that Echrad was also the mother of Donnchad, and the error arose as the sentence so stating was rearranged and transcribed, as I said before.” END OF QUOTE

Post by HWinnSadlerI know of no other wives of Cellach mac Cerbaill. However, that doesn't automatically mean she is the mother of all of his children.

There are many opposing arguments someone can make to discount the validity of the wives or mothers of some of these semi-historical Irish kings.

We find in ‘An Banshenchas’ the following:

"The mother of Diarmait son of Cerball, hero of the brilliant Ossorians, and of Tadg son of perfect Concobar (noble, wealthy, destructive and impetuous) was the daughter in of brown poetical Mael Sechlaind of the main-line of famous Mael Ruanaid.” END OF QUOTE.

This would give us good indication that the daughter of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid was not only the mother of Darmait mac Cerbaill, but also the mother of Darmait’s brother, Cellach mac Cerbaill.

Post by HWinnSadlerI started the thread looking for any information on his ancestors. Stewart Baldwin is very respectable, if he accepts the descent, it very likely is true. I will definitely look for those threads. Thank you for mentioning them.

You stated earlier, “While the Book of Lecan seems to be the only source for Donnchad's maternity, that does not automatically mean it is incorrect. Luke Stevens seemed to raise some good arguments in favor of the interpolation's truthfullness.”

Then it must be pointed out, that the argument objecting to Donnchad’s maternity as asserted to in 'The Book of Lecan' requires a greater leap of faith than the argument supporting the interpolation’s truthfulness.

Post by HWinnSadlerEven if Cellach mac Cerbaill's mother was Maelfelbha, there is still the problem of Diarmait mac Cerbaill- he was not the great grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages as the genealogists claimed.

Bhreathnach has provided a possible alternative reading of Díarmait's background. She has highlighted the links between Díarmait and his family with the north-east and suggests that they may have “originally belonged to a north-eastern or north-midlands people and that they were involved in a realignment which caused them to emerge ultimately as part of the Uí Néill.” Bhreathnach concedes this theory “is somewhat difficult to substantiate owing to the absence of direct evidence.”

Per Wikipedia: “As for the reality, Byrne says: ‘Diarmait's immediate origins are obscure and may arouse some suspicion.’ He notes that Adomnán calls Diarmait filius Cerbulis, son of Cerball, and not son of Fergus as the genealogies would have it. The same applies to other hagiographical materials, which again have Diarmait as the son of an otherwise unknown Cerball. Also likely to raise suspicion that Diarmait's genealogy is a later fiction, is the fact that unlike the majority of the Uí Néill, who traced their descent from, and were named for, sons of Niall, Diarmait's descendants were named for his sons.”

A plausible answer to Byrne’s and Adomnán’s suspicion can be found in Ailbhe Mac Shamhráin, 'Nebulae discutiuntur? The emergence of Clann Cholmáin, sixth-eighth centuries', in, Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology, History and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, Alfred P. Smyth (ed), (Dublin 2000) 95:

“If there was just one Conall son of Níall, it would suggest that Díarmait mac Cerbaill was a close cousin of Columba providing a 'convenient explanation for the naming of Díarmait's son as Colmán (Columbán).”

Post by d***@aol.com...The suspicions asserting that Díarmait mac Cerbaill was not a member of the Uí Néill dynasty lacks the direct evidence to be regarded as historical fact.

You have it completely backwards. A more accurate statement would be:

"The assertion that Díarmait mac Cerbaill WAS a member of the Uí Néill dynasty lacks the direct evidence to be regarded as historical fact."

Contemporary (or near contemporary) evidence is slim for Diarmait and nonexistent for his alleged ancestors (other than the name of his father). On the other hand, the reasons for suspicion are very real. The supposed name of Fergus Cerball given to his father by the genealogies that the (reasonably well-documented) patronymic giving his father as Cerball was contradicted by an alternate version giving his father's name as Fergus. This is reminiscent of the atrocious practice of many modern amateur genealogists who, when they see the father of William Smith given as John Smith in one record and as Robert Smith in another, will "smooth over" the contradiction by giving the father's name as John Robert Smith, rather than doing actual research to determine which one (if either) is correct.

It is still possible that Diarmait was a descendant of Niall, but there is not enough surviving evidence to prove that with any degree of confidence. The earliest well documented ancestor of this particular line is Diarmait himself, or his father Cerball if you are willing to accept him as an individual about whom nothing is known other than his name.

I have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?

Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

Post by HWinnSadlerI have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

I don't see how a line for which "there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links" bypasses difficulties. Flann Sinna's daughter Gormlaith was married to (among others) Cormac, king of Munster, a completely different person from the father of Fáelán. After a brief search on the Internet, the only sites I found giving Flann Sinna as the maternal grandmother of Fáelán mac Cormaic were various junk genealogy sites like Geni. So, it looks like somebody carelessly identified the two Cormacs, followed by the usual copying frenzy by those who will believe anything they read as long as they like what it says.

As bad as the typical Internet genealogy website is, most websites on medieval genealogy are worse, and most on EARLY medieval genealogy are even more unreliable. For the most part, it is a waste of time to dredge through undocumented sites on early Irish genealogy on the outside chance that there will be something worthwhile there.

Post by HWinnSadlerI have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

I don't see how a line for which "there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links" bypasses difficulties. Flann Sinna's daughter Gormlaith was married to (among others) Cormac, king of Munster, a completely different person from the father of Fáelán. After a brief search on the Internet, the only sites I found giving Flann Sinna as the maternal grandmother of Fáelán mac Cormaic were various junk genealogy sites like Geni. So, it looks like somebody carelessly identified the two Cormacs, followed by the usual copying frenzy by those who will believe anything they read as long as they like what it says.As bad as the typical Internet genealogy website is, most websites on medieval genealogy are worse, and most on EARLY medieval genealogy are even more unreliable. For the most part, it is a waste of time to dredge through undocumented sites on early Irish genealogy on the outside chance that there will be something worthwhile there.Stewart Baldwin

A question for Stewart Baldwin:

HWinnSadler gives Aife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac Cellaig, as the mother of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige, which is what you give in “Kings of Osraige”. In your “Eve of Leinster and Radnaillt of Dublin” posting from the 1990s, you noted:

“The Osraige pedigree shows two men named Gilla Patraic, grandfather and grandson, who were both sons of a Donnchad, and the Ban Shenchus shows two marriages of a Donnchad of Osraige which produced a son named Gilla Patraic, but it is not clear which marriage belongs to which Donnchad [BS 189, 228]. I tend to agree with Kelley's suggestion that the wife of Donnchad (#488) was Aife, sister of Domnall mac Faelain of Deisi Muman (#820), but the identification is not certain.”

Post by HWinnSadlerI have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

I don't see how a line for which "there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links" bypasses difficulties. Flann Sinna's daughter Gormlaith was married to (among others) Cormac, king of Munster, a completely different person from the father of Fáelán. After a brief search on the Internet, the only sites I found giving Flann Sinna as the maternal grandmother of Fáelán mac Cormaic were various junk genealogy sites like Geni. So, it looks like somebody carelessly identified the two Cormacs, followed by the usual copying frenzy by those who will believe anything they read as long as they like what it says.As bad as the typical Internet genealogy website is, most websites on medieval genealogy are worse, and most on EARLY medieval genealogy are even more unreliable. For the most part, it is a waste of time to dredge through undocumented sites on early Irish genealogy on the outside chance that there will be something worthwhile there.Stewart Baldwin

“The Osraige pedigree shows two men named Gilla Patraic, grandfather and grandson, who were both sons of a Donnchad, and the Ban Shenchus shows two marriages of a Donnchad of Osraige which produced a son named Gilla Patraic, but it is not clear which marriage belongs to which Donnchad [BS 189, 228]. I tend to agree with Kelley's suggestion that the wife of Donnchad (#488) was Aife, sister of Domnall mac Faelain of Deisi Muman (#820), but the identification is not certain.”Do you now feel that the identification is reasonably certain?Roderick Ward

Yes, I would now consider it as reasonably certain, or at least as certain as you could expect with such difficult sources. At the time I wrote my ancestor table of Aife (Eve), I was not looking that closely at those who were not her ancestors. However, the Ban Senchus entries for Doirenn (a woman of vague ancestry who was mother of the other Gilla patraic mac Donnchada), states that her son Gilla Patraic was king of Laigin [Book of Lecan version] and that her son Gilla Patraic was the father of Domnall mac Gilla Patraic. Both of these statements fit well with the Gilla Patraic mac Donnchada who died in 1055, but not with his grandfather Gilla Patraic mac Donnchada (d. 996). This means that Aife ingen Fáeláin of the Deisi was not the mother of the later Gilla Patraic, which leaves her (by process of elimination) as the mother of the earlier Gilla Patraic (which also fits the chronology better). Not the most solid evidence in the world, but I think it is good enough.

By the way, there is also an alternate descent of "Eve" of Leinster from this Deisi dynasty (see ancestor #401 in the Eve of Leinster table).

Post by HWinnSadlerI have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

For those of you who are still trying to scrounge up a valid descent for Aoife of Leinster from Ui Neill kings, then the following line from Flann Sinna is the best available without using junk genealogy sites. It does, however, assume that descendants of Oengus mac Carraig Calma (d. 1017) took the surname Mac Carriag Calma (which is the most likely scenario), and that the circa dates of death for Oengus’ son and Gormlaith are chronologically acceptable despite the lack of additional evidence.

Post by HWinnSadlerI have come across another possible line to Flann Sinna, High King of Ireland (descendant of Diarmait mac Cerbaill) that seems to bypass some of the difficulties of the provided line, but there doesn't seem to be any sources for a few links. Can someone take a look?Flann Sinna, High King of IrelandGormlaith ingen Flann SinnaFáelán mac Cormaic, king of the DéisiAife ingen Fáeláin, wife of Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige

For those of you who are still trying to scrounge up a valid descent for Aoife of Leinster from Ui Neill kings, then the following line from Flann Sinna is the best available without using junk genealogy sites. It does, however, assume that descendants of Oengus mac Carraig Calma (d. 1017) took the surname Mac Carriag Calma (which is the most likely scenario), and that the circa dates of death for Oengus’ son and Gormlaith are chronologically acceptable despite the lack of additional evidence.

The descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

Post by HWinnSadlerThe descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

It should be noted however that the Y DNA of Diarmait's descendants matches with Niall's son Eoghan's descendants. They are both R1b-M222. This suggests there might have been some sort of descent.

Post by HWinnSadlerThe descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

It should be noted, however, that the Y DNA of Diarmait's descendants matches with the one of Niall's son Eoghan's descendants. They are both R1b-M222. This suggests there might have been some sort of descent.

Post by HWinnSadlerThe descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

It should be noted, however, that the Y DNA of Diarmait's descendants matches with the one of Niall's son Eoghan's descendants. They are both R1b-M222. This suggests there might have been some sort of descent.

R1b is among the most common types in Western Europe. This just means that they were both descended from the people who spread Indo-European languages to the continent. Given that those people were thought to have formed an elite over-lord class, the fact that two hereditary Irish tribal leaders would both be R1b is hardly surprising but hardly suggestive of a close relationship. It means nothing on a genealogical level, other than enabling the exclusion of male-line kinship with non-matching lines. You need a lot more precise typing to determine if they were related in a genealogical time frame. (And this is predicated on the accuracy of the claimed pedigrees of the people tested - if the 'descendant of Eoghan' simply claimed this because that is what O'Hart wrote about his surname, it is worthless. Also there needs to have been enough branches tested to exclude Will's bugaboo, that this just results from a descendant of Diarmait getting his leg over with the wife of a Eoghan descendant, or vice versa.)

Post by HWinnSadlerThe descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

It should be noted, however, that the Y DNA of Diarmait's descendants matches with the one of Niall's son Eoghan's descendants. They are both R1b-M222. This suggests there might have been some sort of descent.

R1b is among the most common types in Western Europe. This just means that they were both descended from the people who spread Indo-European languages to the continent. Given that those people were thought to have formed an elite over-lord class, the fact that two hereditary Irish tribal leaders would both be R1b is hardly surprising but hardly suggestive of a close relationship. It means nothing on a genealogical level, other than enabling the exclusion of male-line kinship with non-matching lines. You need a lot more precise typing to determine if they were related in a genealogical time frame. (And this is predicated on the accuracy of the claimed pedigrees of the people tested - if the 'descendant of Eoghan' simply claimed this because that is what O'Hart wrote about his surname, it is worthless. Also there needs to have been enough branches tested to exclude Will's bugaboo, that this just results from a descendant of Diarmait getting his leg over with the wife of a Eoghan descendant, or vice versa.)taf

Yes, but R1b-M222 is already a deep subclade haplpogroup, that has been associated to Niall's descendants, by the study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239.

Post by Paulo Canedo...Yes, but R1b-M222 is already a deep subclade haplpogroup, that has been associated to Niall's descendants, by the study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239.

You are overstating what that study claimed, which in turn overstated its own conclusions. What the study really showed was that numerous members of the group R1b-M222 possessed the same surnames as certain medieval individuals who were members of dynasties claiming descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages, although the conclusions were certainly stated in such a way as to invite the misinterpretations of this study that have appeared so widely in the media. There was no significant genealogical evidence given in the article. The two following articles by well known historians have criticized the conclusions.

Post by s***@mindspring.comYou are overstating what that study claimed, which in turn overstated itsown conclusions. What the study really showed was that numerous membersof the group R1b-M222 possessed the same surnames as certain medievalindividuals who were members of dynasties claiming descent from Niall ofthe Nine Hostages, although the conclusions were certainly stated in sucha way as to invite the misinterpretations of this study that have appearedso widely in the media. There was no significant genealogical evidencegiven in the article. The two following articles by well known historianshave criticized the conclusions.

Just as a second datapoint, there are similar problems with the Genghis Khan haplotype - they just found an incredibly common haplotype and decided Genghis was the most likely person to have had a lot of male-line descendants. They recently tested some burials that are thought to have belonged to his family members, and their Y type did not match the 'Genghis' haplotype.

The take-home here is that you really need to critically evaluate the conclusions of these papers and recognize them for what the do, and do not, really demonstrate.

Post by s***@mindspring.comYou are overstating what that study claimed, which in turn overstated itsown conclusions. What the study really showed was that numerous membersof the group R1b-M222 possessed the same surnames as certain medievalindividuals who were members of dynasties claiming descent from Niall ofthe Nine Hostages, although the conclusions were certainly stated in sucha way as to invite the misinterpretations of this study that have appearedso widely in the media. There was no significant genealogical evidencegiven in the article. The two following articles by well known historianshave criticized the conclusions.

Just as a second datapoint, there are similar problems with the Genghis Khan haplotype - they just found an incredibly common haplotype and decided Genghis was the most likely person to have had a lot of male-line descendants. They recently tested some burials that are thought to have belonged to his family members, and their Y type did not match the 'Genghis' haplotype.The take-home here is that you really need to critically evaluate the conclusions of these papers and recognize them for what the do, and do not, really demonstrate.taf

The Genghis Khan case is described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan. In short, Y DNA tests in modern asian men suggest they have a common ancestor about 1000 years ago in Mongolia and thus, and due to the stories of the several wifes, concubine and lovers of the mongol rulers, the researchers suggested the haplogroup C-M217 for Genghis Khan and his clan/tribe. Then some mongolian tombs were tested that suggest the R1b haplogorup for Genghis Khan, however it is unknown whether those tombs were of Genghis's clan/tribe or of some other central asian clan/tribe.

Post by Paulo CanedoYes, but R1b-M222 is already a deep subclade haplpogroup, that has beenassociated to Niall's descendants, by the study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239.

Deep, meaning that it traces way back in time, as in 1000s of years BC deep. And even were we to ignore Stewart's warnings that these results have been seriously over-interpreted, you are still drawing a conclusion that there must be some special significance to the fact (if that's what it is) that two sets of families both have the most common haplogroup in Europe. Yeah, it means they could be related, but it is hardly a strong argument that they are (within a genealogical time-frame).

Post by Paulo CanedoYes, but R1b-M222 is already a deep subclade haplpogroup, that has beenassociated to Niall's descendants, by the study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239.

Deep, meaning that it traces way back in time, as in 1000s of years BC deep. And even were we to ignore Stewart's warnings that these results have been seriously over-interpreted, you are still drawing a conclusion that there must be some special significance to the fact (if that's what it is) that two sets of families both have the most common haplogroup in Europe. Yeah, it means they could be related, but it is hardly a strong argument that they are (within a genealogical time-frame).taf

Sorry for my very little knowledge in genetics, but I thought deep clade meant it was a clade already well below in the tree.

Post by HWinnSadlerThe descent from Flann Sinna would merely provide Diarmait mac Cerbaill as an ancestor. As stated earlier, his descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages is generally doubted, especially because of his patronymic.

Then you are essentially removing two of the most important dynasties from the Southern Uí Néill branch, Síl nÁedo Sláine, the kings of Brega, and Clann Cholmáin, kings of Mide!

This notion of suspicion was mentioned by Byrne in his work, Irish kings and high-kings. Regardless, Professor Byrne concluded that Diarmait mac Cerbaill was a member of the Southern Uí Néill branch and included Diarmait as such in his Genealogical Tables.

If you want the exact quote from Byrne, he states:

“Diarmait's immediate origins are obscure and may arouse some suspicion. In spite of his patronymic (latinised by Adomnán as filius Cerbulis) the genealogical tradition says that his father's name was Fergus, nicknamed Cerrbél or 'crooked mouth'. His grandfather Conall son of Niall was nicknamed Cremthainne (possibly denoting fosterage among the Uí Chremthainn of Airgialla), to distinguish him from his brother Conall Gulban, ancestor of the Cenél Conaill. The habit of giving the same name to different sons remained common among the prolific Irish princes until the sixteenth century.”

Professor F.J. Byrne includes Diarmait mac Cerbaill and his descendants as members of the Uí Néill, specifically the Southern Uí Néill branch.

If one accepts Diarmait mac Cerbaill as a great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, there seems to be no problem connecting Eve of Leinster to Niall of the Nine Hostages, and to the traditional genealogy of the High Kings from him. Here's one possible lineage from Diarmait to Aoife-

Post by HWinnSadlerIf one accepts Diarmait mac Cerbaill as a great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, there seems to be no problem connecting Eve of Leinster to Niall of the Nine Hostages, and to the traditional genealogy of the High Kings from him. Here's one possible lineage from Diarmait to Aoife-Diarmait mac CerbaillColmán Már mac DiarmatoSuibne mac ColmáinConall Guthbinn, King of UisnechAirmetach CáechDiarmait Dian mac AirmetaigMurchad MidiDomnall MidiDonnchad Midi and Bé Fáil ingen CathailMáel RuanaidMáel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid, High King of IrelandAilbe ingen Máel Sechnaill and Cerball mac DúngaileCellach mac Cerbaill (possibly Ailbe's son)Donnchad mac CellaigGilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of OsraigeAnd so on.

Stewart Baldwin does show Cellach mac Cerbaill (d. 908) as the son of Cerball mac Dúnlainge (d. 888) and his 1st (and possibly only) wife, Ailbe ingen Máel Sechnaill in Table 2: Kings of Osraige, 790-1003. Although, I could be interpreting the table wrong.

Probably, yes. And since the descent from Flann Sinna seems only tentative, it seems that there are no descents from Niall of the Nine Hostages to Eve of Leinster that stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

Post by HWinnSadlerProbably, yes. And since the descent from Flann Sinna seems only tentative, it seems that there are no descents from Niall of the Nine Hostages to Eve of Leinster that stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

Absolutely, yes. Especially for the lines of descent you're proposing from Niall to Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige.

The main problem is the Irish sources often don't name the mother. Another possible descent from Niall would connect to Llewelyn ap Iorweth. That would rely on Eithne ingen Domnall Midi being the mother of Muiredach mac Brain (died 818), King of Leinster.

Post by HWinnSadlerThe main problem is the Irish sources often don't name the mother. Another possible descent from Niall would connect to Llewelyn ap Iorweth. That would rely on Eithne ingen Domnall Midi being the mother of Muiredach mac Brain (died 818), King of Leinster.

To HWinnSadler:

This thread is titled, “Ancestry of Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige”, which eventually evolved into a search for a descent from the legendary king, Niall of the Nine Hostages. Is there a descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages to Gilla Pátraic? Probably not! Regardless of the level of scrutiny that is applied to each generation. However, as previously mentioned in a post by Stewart Baldwin, which you seem to have skipped over, he presented a discontinuous line that is available. Now, the discontinuity in the line (which would account for at most two generations but most likely only one), doesn’t automatically mean the line is invalid. With that said, you will not find a valid line of descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages to Gilla Pátraic mac Donnchada, King of Osraige. The following line which doesn’t pass through Gilla Pátraic is available with references added to validate the discontinuous part of the descent.

O’Hart, John. Irish Pedigrees. Vol. 1, (Dublin, 1892): p. xxi (author states, “With reference to the origin of sirnames in Ireland it may be mentioned that, in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe [Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume a particular sirname (or sire-name); the more correctly to preserve the history and genealogy of the different Irish tribes. Each family was at liberty to adopt a sirname from some particular ancestor, and, generally, took their names from some chief of their tribe who was celebrated for his valour, wisdom, piety, or some other great qualities. And the members of a family, each in addition to his own proper name, took, as a common designation, the name of their father, or their grandfather, or of some more remote ancestor.”).

If one was to accept Echrad ingen Matudan as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, there would be a descent from Niall to Gilla Patraic. It's not a universally accepted one, of course, and it has been already discussed. That would count under the title of this thread- ancestors of Gilla Patraic. I did not skip over the lineage presented by Baldwin, as I questioned whether it could be accepted because of the doubt surrounding Diarmait mac Cerbaill. I never questioned the actual line presented, at least back to Diarmait mac Cerbaill- because it seems probable. Confusing, but probable.

Post by HWinnSadlerIf one was to accept Echrad ingen Matudan as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, there would be a descent from Niall to Gilla Patraic. It's not a universally accepted one, of course, and it has been already discussed. That would count under the title of this thread- ancestors of Gilla Patraic. I did not skip over the lineage presented by Baldwin, as I questioned whether it could be accepted because of the doubt surrounding Diarmait mac Cerbaill. I never questioned the actual line presented, at least back to Diarmait mac Cerbaill- because it seems probable. Confusing, but probable.

Isn't the statement "It's not a universally accepted one" a huge understatement, given that the only alleged evidence for the (almost certainly false) claim that Echrad was the mother of Domnall rests on an obviously corrupt entry in a single manuscript, which then needs to be further altered until it states the desired relationship.

I agree that it would be nice to find a well documented line from "Eve" of Leinster back to one of the Uí Néill kings, but when doing genealogy, it is important to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. Concentrating ones efforts on finding a descent from a specific family or individual results in bad genealogy more often than not. Once descent from a specific individual becomes the main goal of genealogical research, wishful thinking and lack of objectivity will often result in the evidence being tortured until (the illusion of) that goal is achieved.

Post by HWinnSadlerIf one was to accept Echrad ingen Matudan as the mother of Donnchad mac Cellaig, there would be a descent from Niall to Gilla Patraic. It's not a universally accepted one, of course, and it has been already discussed. That would count under the title of this thread- ancestors of Gilla Patraic. I did not skip over the lineage presented by Baldwin, as I questioned whether it could be accepted because of the doubt surrounding Diarmait mac Cerbaill. I never questioned the actual line presented, at least back to Diarmait mac Cerbaill- because it seems probable. Confusing, but probable.

Again, the following line of descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages may not be the best documented line but is, however, a valid line.

Byrne, F.J. “Irish Kings and High-Kings”. 2nd ed. (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2001): p. 90 (author states, “It is remarkable that the Síl nÁedo Sláine and Clann Cholmáin derive their origin, not directly from Niall Noígiallach, but from his great-grandson Diarmait mac Cerbaill. The annals date Diarmait's reign as high-king from about 544 to 565. The petty Uí Néill kings of Cenél nArdgail traced their ancestry to an uncle of Diarmait's, but never won the high kingship.”).

O’Hart, John. “Irish Pedigrees”. Vol. 1, (Dublin, 1892): p. xxi (author states, “With reference to the origin of sirnames in Ireland it may be mentioned that, in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe [Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume a particular sirname (or sire-name); the more correctly to preserve the history and genealogy of the different Irish tribes. Each family was at liberty to adopt a sirname from some particular ancestor, and, generally, took their names from some chief of their tribe who was celebrated for his valour, wisdom, piety, or some other great qualities. And the members of a family, each in addition to his own proper name, took, as a common designation, the name of their father, or their grandfather, or of some more remote ancestor.”).

Byrne, F.J. “Irish Kings and High-Kings”. 2nd ed. (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2001): pp. xxxiv-xxxv (author states, “Mac in surnames is a contraction of mac meic, ‘son of the son of’, used as an alternative to ua ‘grandson’ in the eleventh century.”).

Byrne, F.J. “Irish Kings and High-Kings”. 2nd ed. (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2001): p. 90 (author states, “It is remarkable that the Síl nÁedo Sláine and Clann Cholmáin derive their origin, not directly from Niall Noígiallach, but from his great-grandson Diarmait mac Cerbaill. The annals date Diarmait's reign as high-king from about 544 to 565. The petty Uí Néill kings of Cenél nArdgail traced their ancestry to an uncle of Diarmait's, but never won the high kingship.”).

Byrne, F.J. “Irish Kings and High-Kings”. 2nd ed. (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2001): pp. xxxiv-xxxv (author states, “Mac in surnames is a contraction of mac meic, ‘son of the son of’, used as an alternative to ua ‘grandson’ in the eleventh century.”).

O’Hart, John. “Irish Pedigrees”. Vol. 1, (Dublin, 1892): p. xxi (author states, “With reference to the origin of sirnames in Ireland it may be mentioned that, in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe [Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume a particular sirname (or sire-name); the more correctly to preserve the history and genealogy of the different Irish tribes. Each family was at liberty to adopt a sirname from some particular ancestor, and, generally, took their names from some chief of their tribe who was celebrated for his valour, wisdom, piety, or some other great qualities. And the members of a family, each in addition to his own proper name, took, as a common designation, the name of their father, or their grandfather, or of some more remote ancestor.”).

Post by d***@aol.comAgain, the following line of descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages maynot be the best documented line but is, however, a valid line.

If it is not well-documented, on what basis does one conclude it is valid?

Post by d***@aol.comO’Hart, John. “Irish Pedigrees”. Vol. 1, (Dublin, 1892): p. xxi (authorstates, “With reference to the origin of sirnames in Ireland it may bementioned that, in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe[Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume aparticular sirname (or sire-name); the more correctly to preserve thehistory and genealogy of the different Irish tribes. Each family was atliberty to adopt a sirname from some particular ancestor, and, generally,took their names from some chief of their tribe who was celebrated forhis valour, wisdom, piety, or some other great qualities. And the membersof a family, each in addition to his own proper name, took, as a commondesignation, the name of their father, or their grandfather, or of somemore remote ancestor.”).

I would be very much surprised if events transpired as described by O'Hart, who was not the most critical of scholars when it came to repeating Irish pseudo-historical traditions.

Post by tafI would be very much surprised if events transpired as described by O'Hart, who was not the most critical of scholars when it came to repeating Irish pseudo-historical traditions.taf

Just because you believe that O'Hart was not the most critical of scholars does not automatically make the events that transpired in the 11th century, as he has stated, inaccurate. Stewart Baldwin stated, "surnames were already developing at that time." The time he was referring to was obviously the 11th century. I'm sure you have enlightening comments on Byrne, Dobbs, or any other source that might be listed by myself or anyone else, but the point to the post was to highlight something that was already stated as available by Stewart Baldwin.

Some of us (except for Will) do not want to or wish to debate the most renowned expert on soc.genealogy.medieval regarding matters of history or DNA. So for the sake of argument, let's just say there are some better scholars out there for this time period than O'Hart. However, I would not dismiss everything he said because of a lack of critical acclaim.

Post by tafI would be very much surprised if events transpired as described by O'Hart, who was not the most critical of scholars when it came to repeating Irish pseudo-historical traditions.taf

Just because you believe that O'Hart was not the most critical of scholarsdoes not automatically make the events that transpired in the 11th century,as he has stated, inaccurate.

The fact that he said it does not automatically make it inaccurate, but given how many of the things he says are more akin to foundation myths, there is good reason to view it all with extreme skepticism.

Post by d***@aol.comStewart Baldwin stated, "surnames were already developing at that time."The time he was referring to was obviously the 11th century.

There is a distinct difference between 'surnames were developing' and 'King Brian Boru passed an ordinance that mandated the adoption of surnames so as to more correctly record and preserve family history and genealogy'. The former is generic, the latter quite specific, and seemingly anachronistic. Just imagine the level of state administration. Vikings are overrunning major population centers and the king responds by ensuring that genealogists and historians don't get confused over surnames. While all of us here can appreciate the sentiment, I rather think he had more important priorities, and that O'Hart has given us a (or rather, another) just-so story.

Post by d***@aol.com. . . but the point to the post was to highlight something that was alreadystated as available by Stewart Baldwin.

Stewart Baldwin said nothing about an ordinance, nothing about Brian Boru.

Post by d***@aol.comHowever, I would not dismiss everything he said because of a lack ofcritical acclaim.

It is not critical acclaim but a lack of critical skills (or rather, lack of any desire to address the tales he was relating with a critical eye) that is the problem. That is a very good reason for a genealogist to view with extreme skepticism everything that an author says, because if an author made no attempt to separate authentic history from mythology, then the reader has no basis for concluding any given statement is one versus the other unless it is supported independently.

So, what is the earliest source you have that attributes to King Brian Boru such an administrative mandate, and provides his purpose for enacting it?

Post by tafI would be very much surprised if events transpired as described by O'Hart, who was not the most critical of scholars when it came to repeating Irish pseudo-historical traditions.taf

Just because you believe that O'Hart was not the most critical of scholars does not automatically make the events that transpired in the 11th century, as he has stated, inaccurate. Stewart Baldwin stated, "surnames were already developing at that time." The time he was referring to was obviously the 11th century. I'm sure you have enlightening comments on Byrne, Dobbs, or any other source that might be listed by myself or anyone else, but the point to the post was to highlight something that was already stated as available by Stewart Baldwin.Some of us (except for Will) do not want to or wish to debate the most renowned expert on soc.genealogy.medieval regarding matters of history or DNA. So for the sake of argument, let's just say there are some better scholars out there for this time period than O'Hart. However, I would not dismiss everything he said because of a lack of critical acclaim.

Why don't you try to find some actual evidence for the assertion by O'Hart that you are defending? ("in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe [Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume a particular sirname (or sire-name)") If true this ought to be readily proved.

Post by d***@aol.comAgain, the following line of descent from Niall of the Nine Hostages may not be the best documented line but is, however, a valid line.1. Niall of the Nine Hostages2. Conall Cremthainne3. Fergus Cerrbél4. Diarmait mac Cerbaill

[snip]

As has already been discussed, the evidence for the ancestry of Diarmait mac Cerbaill is late and unsatisfactory. The documented line starts with Diarmait and his father Cerball, about whom nothing is known beyond his name, as evidenced by Diarmait's patronymic. Diarmait's father should be called simply Cerball, not Fergus Cerrbél, a name which depends on late evidence, and could very well be a sloppy attempt to combine two contradictory sources.

The designation "rigdamna Temrach" ("rigdamna" of Tara) is a title, and should not be inserted in the middle of the name. So, also correcting a couple of typos, these two should be called Oengus mac Flainn, rigdamna of Tara, and Murchad mac Oengusa, rigdamna of Tara. I prefer translating "Temrach" ("of Tara") into English as an aid to those who don't know what it means. On the other hand, the meaning of the middle Irish term "rigdamna" is not entirely certain, and is best left untranslated. Based on modern scholarship, it probably means something along the lines of "king candidate" (i.e., someone who was regarded as a possible future king).

I went back to some other material to refresh my memory on this subject, and in addition to his son Oengus mac Carraig Calma (d. 1017), rigdamna of Tara, the Annals of Ulster mention three grandsons of Carrach Calma, namely Muirchertach ua Carraig (d. 1022), rigdamna of Tara, Conchobar ua Carraig (d. 1023), and Máel Ruanaid ua Carraig Calma (d. 1033). As Oengus seems to be the only son of Carrach Calma who is known by name, he is the most likely candidate for the father of these grandchildren, but that is not certain. The most likely number of generations is what you show above, but in my opinion, the false precision used above is not suitable for such "discontinuous" cases where we only have evidence that someone was a descendant, without knowing the number of generations or exact path of descent.

Capitalized "Mac" means "son of" and is not a contraction of "mac meic" (son of the son of). The difference between "mac" and "Mac" does not appear in the early manuscripts, and is a purely modern convention, with uncaptalized "mac" being used when the individual was literally a son of the man indicated in the patronymic, and "Mac" is used when he was a more remote descendant (that being indirect evidence that the name was being used as a surname). A similar convention is used with "ua/Ua" (grandson of). For more on Irish surnames, see the comments below about O'Hart.

Post by d***@aol.comO’Hart, John. “Irish Pedigrees”. Vol. 1, (Dublin, 1892): p. xxi (author states, “With reference to the origin of sirnames in Ireland it may be mentioned that, in the eleventh century, the Irish Monarch Brian Boroimhe [Born] made an ordinance that every Irish family and clan should assume a particular sirname (or sire-name); the more correctly to preserve the history and genealogy of the different Irish tribes. Each family was at liberty to adopt a sirname from some particular ancestor, and, generally, took their names from some chief of their tribe who was celebrated for his valour, wisdom, piety, or some other great qualities. And the members of a family, each in addition to his own proper name, took, as a common designation, the name of their father, or their grandfather, or of some more remote ancestor.”).

The above description is complete hogwash. There is no good evidence for the existence of such an ordinance [... unless you regard the following "evidence" to be acceptable: 1. Most of the principal Irish surnames first appeared in between the tenth and twelfth centuries. 2. Brian was the best known Irish king of that period. 3. Therefore, Brian passed such an ordinance. QED]. O'Hart is an absolutely terrible source to use for early Irish genealogy. He can be considered a "scholar" only in the loose sense that he was an amateur enthusiast who diligently (but uncritically) gathered a large amount of genealogical material on early Irish families, and then published the first relatively comprehensive book on the subject that was easily available to the general public. As a result, its "authority" held sway for far too long. I would consider O'Hart to be so bad that in the vast majority of cases, it is not worth citing (and any exceptions would be for a much later period). For early Ireland, if you can't find something in a source better than O'Hart, then it probably isn't right anyway.

As for the development of Irish surnames, there is hardly any DIRECT evidence telling us how this came about. There is a lot of evidence on the process, but it is nearly all indirect, consisting mainly of observations from the records showing that the manner in which individuals were identified changed gradually from a patronymic system (X mac Y) to a surname system (X Ua Y, where "ua" more loosely defined as "descendant" rather than the more literal "grandson"). Much less frequently (in Ireland), some surnames developed using "Mac" rather than "Ua" (later "O"). [In contrast, many more Scottish surnames were of the "Mac" type, but the early Scottish records are far too slim to observe the process.] In the early period of development, before the surnames gradually became standardized, you see occasional cases where both the "Mac" and "Ua" prefixes were used for descendant of the same man. The evidence shows that Irish surnames did not all develop suddenly around the same time, but gradually over a couple of centuries, becoming at first a novelty, slowly evolving into a widely used custom.

An interesting fact related to the hunt for Ui Neill descents, relates to Bé Binn inion Urchadh, the mother of Brian Boru. She was of the Uí Briúin Seóla, who descended from Brión mac Echach Muigmedóin, the half-brother of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Brion had the same legendary descent from the High Kings such as Conn of the Hundred Battles. The problem, of course, is that the Uí Briúin genealogies were possibly forged, and it doesn't even seem possible to trace Brian's mother back to Brion mac Eochaid Mugmedon. But either way, it is an interesting fact.

Post by HWinnSadlerAn interesting fact related to the hunt for Ui Neill descents, relates to Bé Binn inion Urchadh, the mother of Brian Boru. She was of the Uí Briúin Seóla, who descended from Brión mac Echach Muigmedóin, the half-brother of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Brion had the same legendary descent from the High Kings such as Conn of the Hundred Battles. The problem, of course, is that the Uí Briúin genealogies were possibly forged, and it doesn't even seem possible to trace Brian's mother back to Brion mac Eochaid Mugmedon. But either way, it is an interesting fact.

The believable part of the ancestry of Brian's mother Bé Bind could be given as follows. The five intermediate generations which have no confirmation in sources like the annals are of some concern, but the number of generations is about right, and we know that genealogies were being actively compiled during that period, so barring scribal errors (which we have no way of checking), it is likely that that part of the genealogy is valid. We have no reason to be so confident about the generations before Cenn Fáelad mac Colgan (other than accepting Colgú as his father's name from his patronymic), which are a string of unverified names, fading out into the period of myth and legend.

To conclude with what this thread ultimately turned out to be, a quest to find a line of descent for Eve of Leinster from Uí Néill kings, the following is presented. While the following line of descent has yet to be completely proven, it is one of the most probable given the prevailing evidence to date for a descent from Uí Néill kings to Eve of Leinster. Some of the generations have already been commented on previously, so there is no point to rehash that again. Therefore, before picking apart every single generation, take heed of where it says “one of the most probable” lines of descent. The spelling of given names and placement of titles have been corrected where needed.

To conclude with what this thread ultimately turned out being, a quest to find a descent for Eve of Leinster from Uí Néill kings, the following is presented. While the following line of descent has yet to be completely proven, it is one of the most probable given the prevailing evidence to date for a descent from Uí Néill kings to Eve of Leinster. Some of the generations have already been commented on previously, so we don’t need to rehash over that again. Therefore, before picking apart every single generation, take heed of the where it says “one of the most probable” lines of descent. The spelling of given names and placement of titles have been corrected where needed.

1. removed so it could be replaced with a corrected version2. poster's remorse - usually an insult hurled then regretted, or a hypothesis they immediately realized wasn't possible, or mistakenly including personal information3. a certain poster deciding they wanted to 'take back' posted material for a planned publication4. the same poster trying to protect their public image by removing a post that subsequent discussion proved was poorly thought out5. that same poster becoming annoyed over the lack of fawning acceptance and 'taking their ball and going home', wiping out their contributions to the entire thread6. one poster actually went through and removed their entire posting historyI am sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I remember having seen.

Golly - I frequently make mistakes in posts, but since sgm is a newsgroup and not a court of law this is hardly worth bothering about: I post corrections whenever it seems worthwhile.

It has never occurred to me that a bollixed post should be deleted, but then I'm not here touting for business or cadging free research assistance towards publication ...

1. removed so it could be replaced with a corrected version2. poster's remorse - usually an insult hurled then regretted, or a hypothesis they immediately realized wasn't possible, or mistakenly including personal information3. a certain poster deciding they wanted to 'take back' posted material for a planned publication4. the same poster trying to protect their public image by removing a post that subsequent discussion proved was poorly thought out5. that same poster becoming annoyed over the lack of fawning acceptance and 'taking their ball and going home', wiping out their contributions to the entire thread6. one poster actually went through and removed their entire posting historyI am sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I remember having seen.taf

When a posting gets deleted after part of it was quoted by someone else who responded, does the quoted part of the second remain, or is it removed also?

Post by s***@mindspring.comWhen a posting gets deleted after part of it was quoted by someoneelse who responded, does the quoted part of the second remain, oris it removed also?

Quoted text is part and parcel of the new post. Since you are using Google Groups you can see what this looks like. Using the little pulldown menu at the top right of this post, select "Show original" and you will see the full components of a post, in all its glory (well, most of its glory - Google does mask all emails in Groups, though the full unmasked emails are released to Usenet). Each such post is a stand-alone, indivisible item. One line in that long list of headers you see indicates what prior post it is in response to, and that is what most newsreaders use to do threading. Google Groups doesn't actually do it this way - at least last I checked, it matches up subject lines, which is why posts there are listed in chronological sequence within a thread, and not truly threaded (showing which post was a response to which other specific post). Every once in a while, someone will coincidentally reuse a subject line and it will show up as if it was part of an unrelated old thread.

1. removed so it could be replaced with a corrected version2. poster's remorse - usually an insult hurled then regretted, or a hypothesis they immediately realized wasn't possible, or mistakenly including personal information3. a certain poster deciding they wanted to 'take back' posted material for a planned publication4. the same poster trying to protect their public image by removing a post that subsequent discussion proved was poorly thought out5. that same poster becoming annoyed over the lack of fawning acceptance and 'taking their ball and going home', wiping out their contributions to the entire thread6. one poster actually went through and removed their entire posting historyI am sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I remember having seen.taf

One advantage of the gateway between SGM and GenMed was that, in recent years, the archives were (pretty much) mirrors of one another - aside from occasional hiccups. But the GenMed archive was actually more complete the the SGM archive (at least via Google Groups), because messages posted on SGM and later deleted by the original poster (for any of the reasons that Todd mentions) remained intact in the GenMed archive - i.e. the "delete" action was not passed through the gateway. That was one of several advantages of the GenMed archive over the Google Groups archive.

Post by John HigginsBut the GenMed archive was actually more complete the the SGM archive(at least via Google Groups), because messages posted on SGM and laterdeleted by the original poster (for any of the reasons that Toddmentions) remained intact in the GenMed archive - i.e. the "delete"action was not passed through the gateway. That was one of severaladvantages of the GenMed archive over the Google Groups archive.

I am not sure which was more complete - with the pseudo-moderation of GEN-MED, posters in the 'sin bin' will not have all their posts appear there. Also I know of at least one poster contributing through GEN-MED who would routinely include a header to stop it from being archived at Rootsweb, but Google ignores such settings on the other side, so those messages still are seen at s.g.m. Historically, flukes in the GEN-MED archiving meant that the s.g.m was more complete, except for the unfortunate loss of almost the entire first few years (when Deja.com went belly-under, Google rebuilt the Usenet archive from other sources, and the only s.g.m posts that made it back were the ones that were crossposted to other groups, and came in when the others were restored). Because thegateway was particularly flaky in the early years, many of the early posts never made it to GEN-MED (or at least never made it to the archive).